JUDGMENT 1. 1. Question of law which arises for determination in these writ petitions so identical and, therefore these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 2. For the purpose of appreciating the controversy involved in the writ petitions, I consider it appropriate to set out some facts mentioned in Writ Petition No. 6649/91 Ved Prakash Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. For the purpose of recruitment to the posts of Junior Accountant/Tehsil Revenue Accountant under the provisions of Rajasthan Accounts Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 and Rajasthan Tehsil Revenue Accounts Service Rules, 1975, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on the basis of the requisition sent by the State Government. In all 750 vacancies of Junior Accountants and 60 of Tehsil Revenue Accountants were advertised by the Commission. In each of these two cadres different number of vacancies were reserved for the members of Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe, Physically Handicapped and Ministerial Employees. A written examination was held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. On the basis of performance of the candidates, merit list/seniority list was prepared by the Commission. Although there is some controversy regarding the number of candidates selected,from the reply of Respondent R.P.S.C. it transpires that in all 380 candidates belonging to General Category, 34 Scheduled Caste candidates, 8 Scheduled Tribe candidates, 21 Physically Handicapped candidates and 93 Ministerial employees were selected in the first instance. Their names were sent by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to the Government which ultimately appointed them. Admittedly none of the petitioners figure in the merit list on the basis of which these persons have been appointed from the General Category. The Government of Rajasthan had issued a Circular dated 16.8.89 by which an implied embargo on the carry forward rule was imposed. Valiantly of this circular was examined by a Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2553/90 Richpal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 (2) RLR 86 . By its decision dated 14.9.90, the learned Single Judge declared the Circular of the Government to be ultra virus of the rules and, therefore, the Court struck it down. The decision of the Single Bench was upheld by the Division Bench judgement reported in 1991 (1) RLR 612 which dismissed the appeal and the decision of the Division Bench has become final. The decision of the Single Bench was upheld by the Division Bench judgement reported in 1991 (1) RLR 612 which dismissed the appeal and the decision of the Division Bench has become final. On the basis of the decision of the High Court striking down the Circular dated 16.8.89 a number of candidates who appeared in the examination for recruitment on the post of junior Accountant approached the Court. The Court allowed several writ petitions and gave directions to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to forward the names of the candidates in accordance with their merit to the Government for appointment against the vacancies which remained unfilled on account of non availability of the candidates of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and which ought to have been treated as general category vacancies. In all 90 candidates were given appointment in accordance with their merit. In the meantime, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission had sent a reserved list of 113 candidates and the Government appointed these 113 candidates from amongst the general category. On the basis of the decision of the High Court (Principal Seat at Jodhpur) in K. N. Vyas v. R. P. S.C. & ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4201/90 decided on 23. 1. 91, 14 Ministerial Employees were appointed as junior Accountants. Thus on the basis of the figures furnished by the R.P.S.C. it can be said that in all 587 candidates belonging to General Category, 34 belonging to Scheduled Caste, 8 belonging to Scheduled Tribe, 21 Physically Handicapped and 107 Ministerial Employees have been appointed as junior Accountants on the basis of the examination held in pursuance to advertisement of 1988. 3. All the petitioners have claimed that although they have been selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for appointment as junior Accountants, on account of the fact that the state Government and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission have acted in violation of the provisions of 1963 Rules, they have been denied appointment. Thus, their legal rights to be appointed in the Rajasthan Accounts Subordinate Service has been infringed. Further case of the petitioners is that with the avowed object of clearing the back log of the members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 7.9.89 for making recruitment on the post of junior Accountants. Thus, their legal rights to be appointed in the Rajasthan Accounts Subordinate Service has been infringed. Further case of the petitioners is that with the avowed object of clearing the back log of the members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 7.9.89 for making recruitment on the post of junior Accountants. All the vacancies advertised were exclusively reserved for the members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates. On the basis of this advertisement a large number of SC/ST candidates have been appointed as Junior Accountants. While issuing the advertisement the respondents have completely given a go-bye to the rights of General Category candidates for selection against these vacancies. More than 100 vacancies remained unfilled. These over 100 vacancies were filled by the candidates who were declared successful in the examination held in pursuance to advertisement issued in 1988. 4. The petitioners' claim in the writ petition has been contested by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the from of written reply. The R.P.S.C. has given detailed figures showing the bifurcation of vacancies advertised in the year 1988, the number of candidates selected in different categories and number of actual appointments made on the basis of the recommendations made by the R.P.S.C. suo moto and on the basis of its recommendation made in pursuance of the orders passed by the Court. The R.P.S.C. has asserted that it sent the names of the candidates from the reserved list in response to the request received from the Government within a period of six months of the forwarding of main list. No name has been transmitted to the Government after expiry of that period except of those candidates in whose favour the Court issued directions. The Commission has stated that junior Accountants Competitive Examination 1989 (Special Recruitment Drive for SC/ST candidates belonging to Rajasthan), was held for 500 posts. Of these, 135 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste, 115 posts for Scheduled Tribe and 15 for Physically Handicapped persons. At this examination 336 candidates were declared successful and they have been appointed as junior Accountants in the month of June 1990. Names of 56 candidates have been sent from the reserved list. Thus, in all 392 candidates have been appointed on the basis of Special Recruitment Drive meant for the members of SC-ST. 5. At this examination 336 candidates were declared successful and they have been appointed as junior Accountants in the month of June 1990. Names of 56 candidates have been sent from the reserved list. Thus, in all 392 candidates have been appointed on the basis of Special Recruitment Drive meant for the members of SC-ST. 5. The first and foremost submission made by Shri Bharat Bhushan Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the Government has no legal authority to undertake special recruitment drive for the members of SC.ST. Shri Pareek submitted that vacancies are required to be determined every year as per Rule 9 of 1963 Rules. Against these vacancies general category candidates have a right to appear for selection. The Government has infringed the rights of the petitioners to be considered from recruitment against the general quota vacancies. Shri Pareek argued that but for the wholesale reservation made for the members of SC/ST, the petitioners would have been appointed because they stood selected on the basis of the Examination of 1989. In any case their right to be considered for regular selection on the post of Junior Accountants, which is guaranteed by the constitutional code of equality, has been infringed. Shri Pareek further argued that the quota of maximum reservation must not exceed 50% of the total number of vacancies. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in T. Devadasan v. U.O.I. & Anr., AIR 1964 SC 179 , Shri Pareek further argued that the Government itself chose to make appointment of 13 candidates against the vacancies reserved for Ministerial Employees. This may have been done under the Court's order. However, once the Government has chosen to abide by the directions given by the Court in favour of the Ministerial Employees, corresponding number of vacancies ought to have been filled from amongst the general category candidates. Shri Pareek then argued that in any case when the vacancies advertised in 1989 have not been filled and a fresh advertisement has been issued by the Government for the vacancies of 1990-91, and this is clear evidence of the fact that vacancies of Junior Accountants are still available and no reason is there for not filling up the posts from amongst the candidates who were selected in pursuance of the advertisement of 1988. Shri Pareek submitted that the Court is free to mould the relief which can be given to the petitioners. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Ashok alias Eowda v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 80 , and a decision of this court in Madanpuri v. Dungarpur Banswzra Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Ors., 1992 Lab. IC 521. 6. Shri Ashok Parihar and Shri R.S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Addl. Government Advocate, submitted that the Court must not interfere with the appointments made on the basis of advertisement made in the year 1989. Shri Parihar strenuously argued that the appointment of selected candidates cannot be challenged without impleading them as party to the writ petitions. No order to their prejudice can be passed by this Court because that would result in condemning the candidates of SC/ST unheard. Shri Parihar then submitted that the writ petitions have been filed against the selection initiated vide advertisement of 1989 The first petition has been filed after more than two years of the initiation of the process of selection. The petitioner was very well aware of the advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. He kept total silence till declaration of the result. The candidates selected as a result of the special recruitment drive have a right to enjoy the appointment made in their favour and it will be unjust and unreasonable if their acquired rights are taken away after such long lapse of time On merits Shri Parihar argued that no candidates having lower merit than the petitioners has been selected by the Commission on the basis of advertisement of 1989 as junior Accountant and, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim that their fundamental right of equal protection of law has been infringed. 7. Having given my serious and thoughtful consideration to the pleadings of the parties and the submissions of the learned counsel, I find that none of these petitions merit acceptance. So far as the appointment of SC/ST candidates is concerned, in my opinion the entire argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is academic in nature. Admittedly the advertisement was issued on 7.9.89. So far as the appointment of SC/ST candidates is concerned, in my opinion the entire argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is academic in nature. Admittedly the advertisement was issued on 7.9.89. It is not the case of the petitioners that they were unaware of the advertisement issued by the Commission and of the fact that the selection is confined to the members of SC/ST and other reserved category candidates. Petitioners waited for entire period of two years and more than two months before approaching this Court in order to assail the legality of the action of the Government and the Commission in initiating the process of selection on the basis of advertisement made in the year 1989. Each of the candidates who have been appointed on the basis of selection made in pursuance of the advertisement dated 7.9.89 acquired a valuable right to serve the Government as junior Accountants. These persons are enjoying the status as junior Accountants for last almost two years. Any order upsetting their appointments after lapse of a period of two years of their appointment will be wholly unreasonable and unjustified. It is true that there is no law of limitation applicable for filing of writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and there is no upper time limit and no lower time limit but at the same time it is equally true that persons filing writ petitions under Article 226 must approach the Court with greatest expedition. Delay accompanied with total silence or negligence on the part of the petitioner furnishes good ground for not giving relief to the petitioner. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is an equitable jurisdiction and it is not meant to defeat equity. The petitioners had been sitting on the fence for a period of two years before approaching the Court. They woke up from slumber when they found that they cannot be appointed in pursuance of the selection made in the year 1989. The total silence on the part of the petitioners for such a long period is by itself sufficient to disentitle them to any relief to exercise of. They woke up from slumber when they found that they cannot be appointed in pursuance of the selection made in the year 1989. The total silence on the part of the petitioners for such a long period is by itself sufficient to disentitle them to any relief to exercise of. In P.S. Sadasivasmi v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1976 (1) SLR 53 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court had declared that in service matters, employees must remain very vigilant and must approach the Court within a period of six months of the accrual of cause of action and latest within one year. The same principle has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Ramcharan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1977 (2) SLR 7 , where this Court dismissed a writ petition filed against an order of termination after a period of over one year of the passing of the order. I am clearly of the opinion that it is a fit case in which the petitioners should be non-suited only on the ground of laches in-so-far as their claim against the selection of candidates belonging to SC/ST and other reserved categories is concerned. 8. That apart I find that none of the candidates selected and appointed on the basis of advertisement issued in the year 1989, has been impleaded as a party to writ petition. Any order passed by this Court to their prejudice would result in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. Actions taken by quasi judicial authorities and at times even by administrative authorities are undone by the Courts once it is found that the action has been taken in disregard of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Court is bound to make its order in consonance with the natural justice. Those persons who have been appointed on the basis of advertisement of 1989 cannot be condemned unheard. This is an additional reason, which in my opinion disentitles the petitioners to claim any relief with reference to the advertisement of 1989. 9. Therefore, the Court is bound to make its order in consonance with the natural justice. Those persons who have been appointed on the basis of advertisement of 1989 cannot be condemned unheard. This is an additional reason, which in my opinion disentitles the petitioners to claim any relief with reference to the advertisement of 1989. 9. So far as the claim of the petitioners with reference to selection made by the Commission against the vacancies advertised in 1988 is concerned, the petitioners have failed to show that any person lower in merit than them has been appointed either on the basis of recommendation made by the Commission voluntarily or on the basis of directions issued by the Court. The rule regarding determination of vacancies no doubt imposes a mandatory obligation on the Government and other competent authorities to determine the vacancies every year and by virtue of various decisions of this Court commending with Dr. M.P. Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan, 1978 WLN (UC) 383 and ending with Prakash Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 (2) RLR 1 , it can be said that not only the vacancies must be determined year wise but selection must also be made year wise. However, on the basis of that principle the petitioners cannot claim any direction in their favour. In fact rigorous enforcement of that principle disentitle the petitioners from claiming any relief. It is more than evident from a perusal of the reply of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission that against 750 vacancies notified by it in the year 1988, in all 757 appointments have already been made. Vacancies for SC and ST candidates (exclusively) were advertised in 1989. Subsequent advertisement of 17.11.90 relates to the vacancies of the year 1990-91. Th petitioners have no claim whatsoever for appointment against the vacancies in the cadre of Junior Accountants which became available in the years 1989-90 and 1990-91. The entire scheme of the Rules which envisage determination of vacancies every year, which envisages quota for direct recruitment and promoters, which envisage selection with reference to the year of vacancies, on the basis of selection made by the Commission in pursuance of a particular advertisement, candidates cannot be appointed against the vacancies which became available in subsequent years. The entire scheme of the Rules which envisage determination of vacancies every year, which envisages quota for direct recruitment and promoters, which envisage selection with reference to the year of vacancies, on the basis of selection made by the Commission in pursuance of a particular advertisement, candidates cannot be appointed against the vacancies which became available in subsequent years. In fact either due to inadvertence or on account of deliberate actions, the Government has failed to strictly adhere to the quota rule and this has resulted in irregularity but in my opinion there is no warrant for thinking that if the Rajasthan Public Service Commission selects a candidate in pursuance to a particular advertisement, the candidate so selected gets an indefeasible right to be appointment in respect of the vacancy occurring during subsequent years. In fact his right to be appointed is confined to the vacancies advertised. No right whatsoever can be claimed by him to be appointed against the vacancies which became available in any year subsequent to the year which the vacancies are advertised. Thus, the petitioners cannot make a claim that although against 750 vacancies in all 757 candidates have already been appointed, Court should issue a direction for appointment of the petitioner and thus bring about a situation where vacancies of subsequent years are utilised for making appointment in respect of the advertisement issued in 1988. 10. There is yet another reason which disentitles the petitioners from any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The provisions contained in the Rules of 1963 and the Rules of 1975 show that the Commission can act upon the reserve list prepared by it only for a period of six months from the date of forwarding of the main select list and that too when the Government or the competent authority has sent a requisition to the Commission within that period of six months. The petitioners have approached the Court for grant of relief many months after the life of the reserve list had already expired. What the petitioners want is that the Court should now issue a direction to the respondents which would result in revival of the reserved list. In substance they want that the Court should issue a direction which would result in violation of the provisions contained in the statutory rules and that in my opinion is wholly impermissible. What the petitioners want is that the Court should now issue a direction to the respondents which would result in revival of the reserved list. In substance they want that the Court should issue a direction which would result in violation of the provisions contained in the statutory rules and that in my opinion is wholly impermissible. No writ can be issued by the Court directing a public authority to violate the provisions of law. Thus, neither of the submissions of Shri Pareek deserves acceptance. 11. Consequently, all these writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. Ordinarily I would have saddled the petitioners with costs but looking to the fact that petitioners are out of employment, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.Petitions dismissed. *******